decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Constitutional Basis for Design Patents | 201 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
If not why not?
Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 05:42 PM EDT
Because the government is required to follow "due process" if they
wish to seize private property. Granting a monopoly to one party is seizing that
self-same property from others.

That means "Intellectual Property" HAS to be new and novel in order to
be granted protection. If it's new and novel then there is no-one there to have
their property seized.

Okay okay I know in practice it doesn't work like that ...

But that's why "design patents", and trademarks, and trade dress and
that ilk are all justifiable. They are - supposedly - a unique niche carved out
by a supplier and any attempt by others to duplicate them is a "fraud on
the public" fooling them into paying for something they're not getting.

If you want to look at past history of this, look at how NCR gained a near
monopoly in its business ... (National Cash Register - and the robber baron
tactics it used to put other cash register manufacturers out of business).

Cheers,
Wol

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Constitutional Basis for Design Patents
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 14 2012 @ 11:43 PM EDT
Design patents aren't a subset of trademark, they're a subset of patent law.
There's some shared concepts, but then again, copyright and patent share
concepts, trademark and copyright, etc.

Design patents trace their authority to the IP clause, same as patents and
copyrights (and *unlike* trademark). The justification for design patents is
essentially that novel ornamental designs are important to promoting the
progress of the useful arts, in that ornamentation is one other way for
businesses to compete with one another (utility being the major way). Design
patents are there for the things that copyright won't cover and utility patents

can't cover - nothing about the IP clause says that the only forms of protection

that are allowed under it are copyright and patent.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )